Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
23/01120/B Page 1 of 9
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 23/01120/B Applicant : Mr Neil Birchall Proposal : Demolition of a detached dwelling and erection of a replacement detached dwelling with integral garage and associated parking Site Address : Strathallen Main Road Ballabeg Isle Of Man IM9 4LJ
Planning Officer: Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken : Site Visit : 08.03.2024 Expected Decision Level :
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 23.04.2024 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The general principle for a new dwelling has been accepted, however by reason of the proposed replacement dwelling having a mediocre design, neither following Planning Circular 3/91 nor being of any innovative, modern or high quality design results in an adverse visual impact having an inappropriate and unacceptable impact on the countryside failing the tests of paragraph 8.11.2 and Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 2. By reason of its mediocre, inappropriate and unacceptable design and having an inappropriate timber boundary treatment and lack of soft landscaping the proposal is considered to negatively impact on and detract from the open views and vistas, harming the rural character of the streetscene and surrounding area and at odds with the site specific rural context contrary to section 3.20 of the Area Plan for the South 2013 and this negative impact has an adverse effect on the visual quality of the countryside and for which there is no over- riding national need demonstrated contrary to Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man strategic Plan 2016.
R 3. Although recognised as being outside of the settlement boundaries of Ballabeg and Colby, the proposal fails to include any tree planting or landscape screening which undermines Landscape Proposal 16 of the Area Plan for the South 2013.
R 4. Whilst some highway benefit in creating off road parking has been recognised there's a lack of clarity in the extent of the works within the visibility splay to fully demonstrate safe egress from the access and safety of other road users at this particular site along the main
==== PAGE 2 ====
23/01120/B Page 2 of 9
road at odds with General Policy 2 (h and i) and Transport Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
o Friary Farmhouse, Ballabeg as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status. __
Officer’s Report
THE SITE 1.1 The site relates to an existing detached bungalow sitting along the main road between Ballabeg and Colby. The dwelling
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the demolition and replacement of the bungalow with a new two storey dwelling with an integral garage.
2.2 The application also seeks the creation of a new access and off road parking.
2.3 The dwelling is to be finished with a pitched roof and one front peaked gable finished in concrete roof tiles, the walls painted cream render with some feature horizontal grey weatherboard cladding, white upvc windows and a grey front and garage door.
2.4 Concerns with the proposal were expressed to the agent in an email 8.02.24, a response was provided by the agent outlining another application 16/01160/B which was on land not zoned for development and was approved with an appearance that was not traditional. No changes were made to the submission and the assessment continues on the basis of the original scheme.
PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There have been no previous applications at this site.
3.2 The agent raised 16/01160/B - demolition of existing and erection of replacement dwelling - approved. Part of that officer report concluded: "6.7 However, the above notwithstanding, the varied form and massing and materials is welcome and, while there is nothing in particular to suggest that this design is 'traditionally coastal', neither could much of the character of the area be said to provide especially positive or clear design inspiration in this sense. It has accordingly been a somewhat difficult application both to assess and also give design advice with regards to, not least since the site is constrained in terms of its unusual, triangular shape but also it’s being bounded by highways on two sides. 6.8 In view of the above, it is considered that the proposed dwelling design is acceptable in this location. It is of an appropriate mass and form relative to its surroundings. It will provide for a welcome addition to the mixture of design styles in the area and, while unlikely to be a design appreciated by everyone, it will not result in an adverse impact on that area. It is neat and coherent and is considered to be an appropriate response to this site. Accordingly, it is concluded that the application complies with Housing Policy 14."
==== PAGE 3 ====
23/01120/B Page 3 of 9
PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area not designated for development and outside of a settlement boundary. The site is not within a Conservation Area nor recognised as being at any flood risk. The road in front of the dwelling is indicated to be at some risk of surface water flooding.
4.2 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered relevant in the assessment of this application; o Strategic Policies 2,3 and 5 - directs development to settlements and promotes good design o Spatial Policy 5 - Building in defined settlements or in line with GP3 o General Policy 2 - General development considerations and standards o General Policy 3 - Exceptions to development of dwellings in the countryside (a, b, d) o Housing Policy 4 - New dwellings in settlements unless meeting exceptions to development in countryside o Section 8.11 - Replacement dwellings paragraphs and policies o Housing Policy 12 - Criteria for replacement dwellings o Housing Policy 14 - Replacement dwellings in the countryside o Environment Policy 1 - Protection of the countryside from adverse harm o Environment Policy 2 - Protection of the AHLV o Environment Policy 42 - promotes development taking account of locality in design. o Transport Policy 4 - accommodate vehicle and pedestrian movements o Transport Policy 7 - parking standards o Community Policy 7, 11 - prevent criminal activity and reduce spread of fire o Infrastructure Policy 5 - conserve the Island's water
4.3 Also relevant in the assessment are: o Planning Circular 3/91 - guide to the development of houses in the countryside and best practise. o Residential Design Guide (2021) which provides detailed advice including sustainable development, sustainable methods of construction, climate change resilience, design of new houses and how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties.
4.4 The following policies and paragraphs of the Area Plan for the South 2013: o Section 3.19 Arbory (including Colby and Ballabeg) - Arbory is a largely rural parish; Ballabeg and Colby both in IOMSP Spatial Strategy. The older part of Colby is in Conservation Area, Ballabeg Village has a strong sense of community and part is also proposed to be designated as a Conservation Area recognising the special nature of the older elements of the Village. o Section 3.20 key objectives: i) to protect the tranquil, rural character of the area with its open views, ii) sensitive location of new buildings and the use of screen planting, iii) avoidance of physical or visual amalgamation of roadside housing. iv. Protection and enhancement of the identity of Ballabeg and Colby by the conservation of the rural character of the adjacent landscape. o Landscape Proposal 16: Any new residential development in the settlements of Colby and Ballabeg should include tree-planting designed not only to soften the impact of the development, but also to enhance the landscape o Within Landscape Character Area D14
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Arbory Commissioners - OBJECTION (01/11/2023) overdevelopment of the site in terms of scale and character. Concerned that the visibility splays were inadequate.
==== PAGE 4 ====
23/01120/B Page 4 of 9
5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - Do not oppose Subject to Condition (06/10/2023) - no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as there is an existing dwelling on the site and the proposals provide an improved parking situation compared to existing. The Applicant is advised to consider an EV charging point on the site. Conditions on approval should include vehicle turning and access to be provided as per approved plan before occupation, and garage to store vehicles/cycles.
5.3 DEFA Ecosystems - Request for more information (20/10/2023) - current scheme results in a net loss of biodiversity and hedge and tree planting plans are sought prior to determination, if not these must be sought via condition and prior to any works being undertaken.
5.4 The owners of Friary Farmhouse - Objection (30/10/2023) the proposed dwelling is not rural in nature, is much bigger than what currently is on site and is not in keeping with eth countryside. Part of the visibility splay is outside of their ownership and not in their control to adjust.
5.5 Comments were also sought from the following people but nothing received as of 10/04/2024: o Manx Utilities
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this application are: i. Principle of development (StP2, GP3, HP4, P8.11.1, HP12) ii. Whether the proposal meets replacement dwelling criteria (HP14) iii. Visual Impact on wider countryside (EP1) iv. Visual Impact on immediate surrounding area (S3.19, S3.20 and LP16) v. Highway Safety Impacts (GP2(h,i), TP7) vi. Impact on neighbours (GP2(g) Residential Design Guidance 2019) vii. Any other matters - criminal activity, water, fire (CP7,11 IP5) viii. Response to agent comments re:16/01160/B.
6.2 i) Principle of development (GP3, HP4, HP12) 6.2.1 This site is outside of a settlement so failing parts of Strategic Policy 2 and Housing Policy 4 directing development to existing settlements, however exceptions to this are set out at GP3 and this allows for replacement dwellings (GP3d) subject to criteria set out in HP12, HP13 and HP14.
6.2.2 Aerial images suggest that the house has not lost its residential status through abandonment and therefore HP12a and 13 do not apply.
6.2.3 Paragraph 8.11.1 highlights existing dwellings across the countryside that contribute positively to the character and appearance of our landscape and are of merit should sought to be retained (HP12b) and with any changes resulting in environment improvements encouraged and any changes resulting in a negative impact discouraged. The existing dwelling is of no merit. It's non-traditional in its form and proportion, is outside of a conservation area, is not registered and is not of any historic, social or architectural interest warranting its protection or retention and therefore not at odds with HP12b. Supporting information includes a pre- demolition report which identifies asbestos roofing and wall panel materials, the report concludes these elements to be low risk and recognises that such materials can be left in situ so long as they are recorded, risk assessed and preventing them from being damaged so as to release fibres (dwellings are excluded from formal procedure). The asbestos materials and survey are not a reason to warrant the buildings demolition in this case (although health issues with asbestos are recognised and good practise to ensure safety of workers).
==== PAGE 5 ====
23/01120/B Page 5 of 9
6.2.4 Given the above it is accepted that the existing house is of no merit and there is policy support for the principle of a replacement one for one dwelling here. The test of its success fall to whether the proposal meets with the criteria set out in HP14 and whether there would be any wider visual impact or any impact on highway safety or amenity. The principle is accepted.
6.3 ii) Whether the proposal meets replacement dwelling criteria (HP14) 6.3.1 Paragraph 8.12.1 states "it is important that replacement dwellings should relate closely to the buildings they replace in terms of siting and size, that the resulting visual impact is appropriate for the countryside, and that existing stone and slate are re-used" and HP14 criteria reinforces this: "Housing Policy 14: Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the "footprint" of the existing, and should have a floor area(1), which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally, the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2- 7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91, (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in general, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building. Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact."
6.3.2 Unlike larger plots this site is fairly constrained and so there is little scope for any considerable siting changes and the proposal remains generally on top of the existing footprint and this weighs in favour of the proposal. The existing bungalow has a 96sq m floor area (no existing floor plans have been provided). The proposed dwelling has an overall floor area measuring 214sq m, this is a 122.9% increase and this weights against the proposal unless meeting with the closing consideration of HP14, we'll come back to this point at paragraph 6.3.5. The proposal includes some solar panels and an ASHP which provides some renewable energy production for the dwelling and this weighs in favour of the proposal.
6.3.3 HP14 states that generally new buildings should meet PC 3/91, but this proposal does not. Whilst it does have a some rectangular plan and form, it is not integrated into the landscape, does not follow size or pattern of a traditional farmhouse, external finishes are not traditional, doors and windows together with their size are not of traditional rural form, no chimneys are provided and these are important features and the features on the building do not respect the successful features in a rural scene, and this significantly weighs against the proposal.
6.3.4 Exceptionally, permission may be given to innovative, modern and high quality design which would not result in an adverse visual impact and that designs should incorporate re-use of stone and slate from site. In this case the existing dwelling does not appear to have stone or slate available to re-use but the wording of this part of the policy reinforces that the inclusion of such traditional fabric would be favourable. In this case the agent has stated the design would be 'contemporary', however this is not of any innovative or modern design but moreso an urban design duplicating dwelling already found within housing estates such as Cronk Cullyn in Colby, Ballakilley in Port Erin and Reayrt Mie in Ballasalla. The design statement and drawings clearly indicate that the finishes are concrete tiles and weather board cladding neither of which are traditional. The design of the building not being innovative, modern or of high quality not including any traditional materials significantly weights against the proposal.
==== PAGE 6 ====
23/01120/B Page 6 of 9
6.3.5 It has now been established that the proposal would be an increases beyond 50% and is not of any innovative, modern or high quality design to warrant it an exception to those tests. The closing criteria of HP14 indicates that only proposals for larger dwellings will be considered if the design of the replacement is of more traditional form or the proposal results in less visual impact compared to the existing dwelling. We have already concluded that the design of the dwelling fails PC3/91 and therefore this weighs against having an increased floor area. The proposal also replaces an existing single storey with a new two storey dwelling and it is accepts that this very upwards nature increases the visual appearance of the dwelling, however, it is due to the wholly unacceptable design of the proposed dwelling that this upwards increase is seen as negative and having an adverse visual impact. The renewable energies from the PV panels and ASHP provide an improved environmental impact but this is not considered sufficient enough to outweigh the other resulting adverse impacts.
6.3.6 For the above reasons the proposal is considered to fail HP14.
6.4 iii) Visual Impact on countryside (EP1) 6.4.1 Areas of open countryside fall both inside and outside the existing landscape classification system and it is important however that this openness is not detrimentally affected by inappropriate development and that the rural character is preserved. "Environment Policy 1: The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative."
6.4.2 The proposal fails HP14 concluding to be an inappropriately design dwelling having an adverse visual impact. This adverse visual impact is not only when viewed in its own right, but also when viewed as part of the wider countryside landscape appearing as an isolated and out of keeping dwelling. There is no over-riding national need evidenced for which there is no reasonable or acceptable alternative and therefore no reason to outweigh the negative and adverse visual impact.
6.4.3 The proposal is considered to fail EP1.
6.5 iv) Visual Impact on immediate surrounding area (EP2, S3.19, S3.20 and LP16) 6.5.1 Some of the key matters here are to protect the open rural views and tranquil character of Arbory, ensuring suitable landscaping and screen planting and avoiding amalgamation of roadside housing. Paragraph 7.4.1 of the IOMSP also indicates that landscape features forming important parts of the landscape character should be retained, including trees, hedges, sod banks and stone walls and where development is not capable of being sensitively and unobtrusively integrated into the landscape, permission will not be granted.
6.5.2 Whilst the proposal will not amalgamate roadside housing due to its position and distance from any neighbouring property and its midway point between the two settlements, the dwellings proposed height, design, form proportion, size and scale is not appropriate and will be out of keeping with the rural character creating an adverse and negative visual impact, and in this isolated position would be an eyesore detracting passers-by from the open vistas and rural character, and without any screen planting would be visual prominent and obtrusive within the streetscene.
6.5.3 Looking at plans, the dwelling sits at a level above the field to the south and although showing the front boundary wall being retained (although reduced) and the rear wall retained. The scheme includes the installation of a timber boarded fence to the rear which would not be a typical or sensitive form of boundary treatment in this rural location further giving the site a
==== PAGE 7 ====
23/01120/B Page 7 of 9
more urban rather than rural appearance, and there is to be no landscape or screen planting incorporated into the scheme, a concern which has also been expressed by DEFA Ecosytems resulting in a nett loss of biodiversity at the site. This adverse impact on the streetscene, on the rural landscape and open views along this road and the lack of screen and landscape planting fails to soften or enhance the proposal all which weighs against the proposal.
6.5.4 The application is considered to be at odds with 7.4.1 and harming the character of the area failing EP2, at contrary to section 3.19 and 3.20 of APS2016 and failing LP16.
6.6 v) Highway Safety Impacts (GP2(h,i), TP4 and TP7) 6.6.1 The existing dwelling does not benefit from any existing vehicle access or off road parking. The proposal will see the creation of a new access and driveway area which would benefit the site in taking vehicles off the main road and reducing on street parking demand. The proposed dwelling also includes one integral garage space meaning there will be space for the parking of at least two vehicles off the road and meeting with the parking standards in Appendix 7 and this weighs also in favour of the proposal.
6.6.2 The plans indicate that a visibility splay of 43m in achievable in each direction however part of this stretches over land not in their ownership as highlighted in comments from Friary Farmhouse. The scheme annotates that the boundary wall will be reduced to 1050mm to help improve visibility, but it is unclear whether any of the walls outside of their ownership and within the 43m will also require reduction. There are some spot levels provided indicating that the dwellings own boundary would be reduced in places by around 400mm and this would result in the loss of a large stretch of the top of the traditional stone wall further taking away screening into the site. While some of the spot levels indicate that walls in other ownership might be around 1m tall and so no need to reduce them, however the spot levels do not run the entire 43m visibility area and their reduction would not be possible unless permission by the landowner was given. The lack of clarity in the extent of the wall works within the 43m weighs against the proposal.
6.6.3 The Local Authority and a local resident have raised highway safety issues. This stretch of road between the two villages is fairly straight and although the dwelling is shown to just sit within the 30mph zone and sometimes these areas can be subject to higher speeds as a transition in and out of the village. Now it could be argued that there is often an acceptance that a house has an access and thus an anticipation of potential vehicular movement, but given the lack of clarity of the visibility splay and this being on an arterial route there is insufficient information to properly safeguard the land owners as well as other road users.
6.6.4 Although DOI Highway Services have stated no significant negative impact and the scheme would provide an improved parking situation, and it is agreed that the creation of off road parking weighs considerably in favour of this scheme, however there is some lack of clarity in the full extent of the visibility splay and potential obstructions particularly at this straight section of road where the speed limit changes and given the loss of roadside boundary and no evidence of there being any other reasonable or acceptable alternative available.
6.6.5 Therefore on balance it is felt that the proposal fails to fully reach the tests of GP2 (h and i) and Transport Policy 4.
6.7 vi) Impact on neighbours 6.7.1 There are no issues in respect of neighbouring amenity due to the distance and siting away from the nearest property.
6.8 vii) Other matters - criminal activity, fire safety, water conservation, habitat 6.8.1 There is already an existing dwelling on site and the proposal is for a one for one replacement. On a whole the proposal is not expected to make any worse criminal activity or spread of fire or water conservation, although it is noted that the proposal would result in
==== PAGE 8 ====
23/01120/B Page 8 of 9
potential increased surface water run-off and the applicant could consider water butts or water storage tanks, or go a step further with water harvesting incorporated within the design of the dwelling which would further help to increase its environmental enhancements by reducing water demand. Overall given there is an existing dwelling and the proposal is a one for one, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of CP7, CP11 and IP5.
6.8.2 Ecosystems have comments that the site has already been cleared of vegetation and this results in a nett loss of biodiversity. Planning is not required here for the removal of hedging, shrubs or general planting and so its removal prior to application is a matter outside the remit of planning and not a reason for refusal. In this instance and from reviewing previous streetview image the previous planting offers a beneficial screening to the site and removing this making more visually prominent the dwelling. The loss of this naturally resulting in the loss of biodiversity and so a scheme for replanting in a subsequent application could benefit the site two fold; improving visual screening and softening the landscape views and improving biodiversity.
6.9 viii) Response to agent comments re: 16/01160/B 6.9.1 Each application is to be considered on its own merits. Both sites are in very different locations, with very different surroundings and different site constraints.
6.9.2 There have been circumstances where new dwellings have been accepted in the countryside that do not align exactly with PC 3/91 and that a sensitive balance between the old and new is found and ultimately one which is reflective of the site specific context. In the case of 16/01160/B it's in a coastal location and clustered amongst other residential development providing a backdrop and established built environment. The officer for that application concluded that the "proposed dwelling design is acceptable in this location. It is of an appropriate mass and form relative to its surroundings. It will provide for a welcome addition to the mixture of design styles in the area and, while unlikely to be a design appreciated by everyone, it will not result in an adverse impact on that area". On the contrary Strathallen is an isolated dwelling, does not benefit from any surrounding backdrop of properties and is within the countryside and the proposed replacement is not of any high quality and is not appropriate or sensitive to the to the site specific context at this rural location.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The existing dwelling is of no merit and so the principle of its replacement is accepted in line with General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 12, and given the existing situation there would be no increase in fire risk, criminal activity or water beyond the existing situation in line with Community Policies 7 and 11 and Infrastructure Policy 5.
7.2 However by reason of its inappropriate and unacceptable design not being of high quality and drawing a negative eye to the site, the proposed replacement dwelling is considered to fail the tests of Housing Policy 14 and having an adverse visual impact on countryside contrary to Environment Policy 1. By reason of its design the proposal is considered to negatively impacting and detracting from the open views and vistas and harming the rural character of the streetscene, surrounding area and at odds with the site specific context contrary to section 3.20 of the Area Plan for the South 2013 and contrary to Environment Policy 1. Although outside of the settlement of Ballabeg and Colby the proposal fails to include any tree planting or landscape screening undermining Landscape Proposal 16. Whilst some highway benefit of creating off road parking has been recognised there's a lack of clarity in the extent of the works within the visibility splay in safeguarding egress of the access and other road users at this particular site along the main road at odds with General Policy 2 (h and i) and Transport Policy 4.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
==== PAGE 9 ====
23/01120/B Page 9 of 9
(a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Acting Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status
Decision Made : Refused Date : 24.04.2024
Determining officer Signed : A MORGAN Abigail Morgan
Acting Head of Development Management
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal